Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd
like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our
other members.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you are a member in good standing, then you can navigate to the 2015 Miami Dolphins Media Guide from the navigation bar at the top of the forums. Also, in the sticky section of the main forum, there is a link to vote on your top 50 dolphins players of all time.

That's a little trickier, I'll have to gather my thoughts on it. I know combat shotguns are semi-automatic. I didn't know they had made them for hunting, too. That seems like overkill to me, but I'm no hunter so I can't really comment...

Re: Go on record: YOUR gun control position.

My position is as such...get your liberal, tree-hugging, whale-saving, no job having, welfare riding, drug taking, goofy dick beaters off of the constitution and my rights. The Founding Fathers knew a bunch of *******s would try to disarm us and subjugate us so they did everything possible to ensure our right to bear arms would never be infringed upon. I don't have to justify nor show any reason or need for whatever gun, ammo, accessories, magazine, or apparatus that I choose to purchase. Yes, guns are used for hunting, shooting sports, and protection but we are specifically guaranteed our right to bear arms to provide a militia that can oppose a tyrannical government. This right is about to seriously challenged by a bunch of idiots who have created much of the disaster that we are faced with each day. All I can assure you about the outcome is that the first dozen or so that come through my door to collect my guns will be very unhappy.

we are specifically guaranteed our right to bear arms to provide a militia that can oppose a tyrannical government.

Ill never in my life understand this. This barely even makes sense if I was talking about the Bahamas government. When talking about the US government it sounds straight up loony toons. Like your shotgun s going to hold up against a tyrannical government with military backing lol. You gonna shoot at the helicopters with your shotgun?

Ill never in my life understand this. This barely even makes sense if I was talking about the Bahamas government. When talking about the US government it sounds straight up loony toons. Like your shotgun s going to hold up against a tyrannical government with military backing lol. You gonna shoot at the helicopters with your shotgun?

It is not the point that one man with a shotgun could oppose an entire army but it is entirely plausable that a consortium of the private gunowners in the US would constitute one of, if not the, largest army that the world has ever seen. An armed populous is a free populous. An armed populous would give even the most diabolical despotism pause before they rushed in to start massacring people. Disarmed people do what they are told because they can not fight back. Our founding fathers knew this to be true.

Ban some, leave others. Im not going to say all semi-auto's are ban worthy because i dont feel that way. As well, im not going to dig through the thousands of models to pick and choose which ones to ban. Its not my job. Pay me, im down to start rifling through the list(horrible pun absolutely intended).

Keep weapons that can be reasonably used for protection, hunting, and sporting events. Limit their ammo capacity. Dont touch police or military weapons. Pay individuals to sell back their banned weapons. Those who dont want to sell, wait until they commit a crime or are seen in public with the weapons and have local police confiscate the weapons(not unlike many of the already existing laws). Those who are never caught or arrested? No harm, no foul, i dont want a witch hunt...especially over weapons that will eventually be obsolete or broken down.

No complete dispossession. Our slave owning, gun dueling, native american slaughtering, war starting, castration supporting Founding Fathers did put in the 2nd amendment for a reason. What that reason is, we dont exactly know or have come to a consensus about(unlike, say, the 1st amendment: almost everything allowed, no child porn). But preventing people from buying certain types of weapons isnt against their rights...as we already agree on because everyone isnt running around with nuclear weapons. Or at least im not, and if im missing out im going to be pissed.

And didnt vote, didnt really see an option i was behind. I suppose its somewhere between the 3rd and 4th option.

Ban some, leave others. Im not going to say all semi-auto's are ban worthy because i dont feel that way. As well, im not going to dig through the thousands of models to pick and choose which ones to ban. Its not my job. Pay me, im down to start rifling through the list(horrible pun absolutely intended).

Keep weapons that can be reasonably used for protection, hunting, and sporting events. Limit their ammo capacity. Dont touch police or military weapons. Pay individuals to sell back their banned weapons. Those who dont want to sell, wait until they commit a crime or are seen in public with the weapons and have local police confiscate the weapons(not unlike many of the already existing laws). Those who are never caught or arrested? No harm, no foul, i dont want a witch hunt...especially over weapons that will eventually be obsolete or broken down.

No complete dispossession. Our slave owning, gun dueling, native american slaughtering, war starting, castration supporting Founding Fathers did put in the 2nd amendment for a reason. What that reason is, we dont exactly know or have come to a consensus about(unlike, say, the 1st amendment: almost everything allowed, no child porn). But preventing people from buying certain types of weapons isnt against their rights...as we already agree on because everyone isnt running around with nuclear weapons. Or at least im not, and if im missing out im going to be pissed.

And didnt vote, didnt really see an option i was behind. I suppose its somewhere between the 3rd and 4th option.

I don't have as much of a problem with drawing a logical line in the sand and saying weapons more powerful than X are not reasonable for personal use. People shouldn't really own Dragon missles and such. I also don't have a problem with weapons/hunters education for people below a certain age. However, I do have a problem with people who have no idea WTF an assault rifle is, what it does, or how to use it spewing forth like they are the All-Powerful and All-Knowing Oz and trying to ban them when they are no more dangerous than any other small arms. I am especially adamant about the subject because any type of weapons ban for anything currently available is completely asinine and simply a knee-jerk reaction so everyone can say, "we did something". We can't or don't enforce the current gun laws and criminals scoff at them so any further regulation will essentially do exactly what all of current gun crowd is saying...prevent law-abiding citizens from buying certain guns without affecting the criminals whatsoever. Banning semi-autos and high-capacity magazines will accomplish absolutely nothing but to deprive sportsmen, hunters, and gun-owners from buying guns and will cost a lot of people their jobs. This whole debate is a contrived, media-driven crock of ****!

I also agree with you about the Founding Fathers lacking a bit of morallity at times but they are still among the wisest and greatest political minds to ever be assembled. Our constitution is probably the greatest document to ever be drafted.

One more quick thing, we don't have to have consensus on the second amendment. It is pretty clear what the intentions were and if people would objectively look to the constitution for the answer rather than project their opinion onto the constitution then look for justification or a loophole to back up what they pre-determined to be right. People do this same crap with the Bible and it makes me sick.

Go on record: YOUR gun control position.

Originally Posted by Buddy

It is not the point that one man with a shotgun could oppose an entire army but it is entirely plausable that a consortium of the private gunowners in the US would constitute one of, if not the, largest army that the world has ever seen. An armed populous is a free populous. An armed populous would give even the most diabolical despotism pause before they rushed in to start massacring people. Disarmed people do what they are told because they can not fight back. Our founding fathers knew this to be true.

Sorry, but if you think that a "consortium" of armed civilians, no matter how large, could be a match for the military force the U.S. government can bring to bear, you don't seem to have any idea of the capabilities of a modern professional military, especially the U.S. armed forces. What we'd all better hope for is that our military and its commanders would never take action against the American people, because if that were to happen, all the guns in private hands wouldn't make a difference. This is the 21st century, not 1776.

Seriously now. What purpose is there fot AR15 and AK47 and their derivatives other than for Walter Mitty fantasies, playing soldier? Would you shoot at a bighorn ram or an elk at 300 yards with a .223 carbine, or even a .308, or would you want a Sako or a Remington 700? If you were going after wild hog, would you want an M4 or a Ruger .44 magnum carbine? If you need a 20 round magazine to hit a fleeing deer, how are you going to keep the rifle on target after the second shot, and by the way, what kind of marksman are you? If you want the historical significance of shooting a military rifle that's covered in glory, or to shoot one competitively under NRA match rules, go over to the CMP and get yourself the best National Match grade M1 Garand you can afford.
If you want serious home defense capability, buy a tactical shotgun.

Even Antonin Scalia, that tea party darling of justices, has opined that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation. Machine guns are regulated. Have to have a class III license to possess one, and if you so much as go to a machinist and ask him to shave a little off the sear, the boys from ATF come knocking on your door tout suite. We don't have a machine gun problem. If "assault rifles" were reasonably regulated, our Second Amendment rights wouldn't suddenly fly out the window.